Are we two politically correct in these times

[russtafa]

I think it's great to protect gays and minorities but some times i think it's insane

[robertlouis]

I think it's great to protect gays and minorities but some times i think it's insane


Yes, sometimes when it's taken to extreme lengths that are patently ridiculous, even to people like me who tend to believe that sensitive use of political correctness in language will prove in the longer term to be an effective way of diminishing prejudice and hatred in people's social attitudes and behaviour.

So sort of yes and no lol! :) - although you can probably guess rightly that I'm generally in favour of it.

[russtafa]

So am i except when it go's to extremes then its ridiculous

[Stavros]

In democratic societies, minorities have acquired 'protected status' as if they were rare birds; but critically, it is to protect employment rights. There was a time when people lost their jobs if they were homosexual -possibly when homosexuality was still illegal; though it doesn't seem to have affected the hairdressing sector...
Employers would shy away from hiring the disabled either because some people are uncomfortable with some forms of disability, or because of a belief the disabled do not have the same abilities as 'normal people'. Colour was another critical element, and eventually religion too. In the 1970s, the Labour Government introduced the legislation making it illegal to discriminate against Women -in work, and in social situations although some private clubs, for example, even today, can still bar women from membership and even in some cases, entry. Most law since the 1970s has built on this. I have seen application forms for jobs in recent years which ask the question; Do you consider yourself to be transgendered? Unthinkable even 10 years ago.

Yes, it can seem excessive, but some firms are also covering their backs against possible litigation from disaffected employees/applicants who use the minority card to claim they are being discriminated against. Ironically, since the majority of the population doesn't share everything in common, in a pure sense, we are all minorities....

[hippifried]

"Political correctness" isn't about minorities & never really has been. It's just being polite. For the past couple of decades, there's been a conserted effort by some (not all) to equate rudeness with honesty. That's a lie. It was a lie when the crocodile tears from the anti-PC campaign started, & it's still a lie. Oh I know there's been cases of forced politick gone overboard, like anything forced, but one would think that was the norm if you listen to the whiners. Codified or froced politick is rude in itself. I'm sure that if this post pisse some whiner off enough, they'll dig through the archives & enumerate all half dozen cases or so from the last few decades, but so what? Rude behavior has never been a good idea, but this campaign is nothing but a lame attempt to justify it. For the most part, it's a tactic to turn bullshit stereotypes into perceived reality or accepted myth. Does it work? I'm sure it does to some extent among the gullible & fearful. Hard to tell because there's no real stats. Just noise.

There's no such thing as impunity, therefore there's no right to be an asshole.

[trish]

Are we too courteous and too considerate in these times?
I seriously doubt it.

Should schools and universities endeavor to teach and promote courtesy and consideration?
I think so.

Should private companies expect their workers to be courteous and considerate of each other and their clients?
Of course.

Are there lots of examples where attempts by schools, universities, companies and places of work to interpret and correct behavior have misfired or gone overboard?
Yes.

Are there a lot more examples where bigoted or unthinking people have been deliberately rude, cruel and hurtful.
Yes.

Do people have a reasonable expectation to be treated with courtesy and consideration?
Yes.

Should people have a legal expectation to be treated with courtesy and consideration?
Usually not, but it probably depends on the circumstances.

[Stavros]

In the UK there was a sort of 'backlash' in the 1980s because the 'urgency' with which issues over minorities were being dealt with was so intense 'the majority' felt they didn't matter because they didn't have a wooden leg, were not black and Jewish and Gay, and so on. I think the left 'discovered' these issues and flogged it to death, in the end people accept difference or they don't, but legally are circumscribed by how they deal with it. Many large institutions, commercial and otherwise, have written all this stuff into their 'constitutions' so its now the gospel of 'diversity and inclusion'. But some people here think people are actually ruder, and more insolent than ever before.

[russtafa]

Its good that the law looks after gays and ethnics but i think it's stupid when they ban children's books that's crazy

[trish]

I'm not sure if you're making a specific reference here or are speaking in generalities. There have been some school districts in the U.S. that restrained teachers from assigning Huck Finn because the dialects of some of the characters were deemed disparaging of various groups of people, predominately African-Americans. Indeed, if I recall, there has been a recent rewrite of Huck Finn with all the "objectionable" language excised. I for one am vehemently opposed to the school board's decision and of the literary assessment upon which it is based. Were I living in that district I would have actively opposed it.

As to the book, I can't very well oppose an author's right to scribble and publish whatever horse-hocky they want, but I don't have to buy horse-hocky__which is why I won't be buying the expurgated Huck Finn or any of Ann Coulter's inane rants for that matter.

But back to schools. Individual States and local school boards, in the U.S., determine the curriculum of K-12 schools, apparently subject only to the legal constraints of the First Amendment. If a school board decides to ban the teaching of Mark Twain that is their prerogative. So we have individual school districts and States banning books, courses, introducing pseudo-history and pseudo-science in scattered places all over the U.S. Some people call it freedom. Others call it abuse to warp a child's education for the sake political ideology. We can't even decide to pay our bills on time, so there's not much of a chance we'll get a reasonable national curriculum for our schools.

You say, in this thread about political correctness, that it's good that "law looks after gays..." I assume you mean that the law makes incorrect speech illegal. I don't know about Australia, but here it is rarely the law but rather private and public institutions, places of business and work that have taken the major initiative to encourage their employees to be conscious of offensive behavior. After all, it's only good business.

[Stavros]

The list in the link includes Little House on the Prairie, Huckelberry Finn, Tintin, and Noddy and Big Ears (!). There comes a point when the left or whoever is responsible for this, undermines its own credibility. Uncle Tom's Cabin (not on this list), like it or not, played a critical role in informing people about slavery, and undermining its hold on the intelligence. When I was in what we call here Junior School (7-11) we used to troop out into the schoolyard on British Empire Day, and stand to attention while the Union Jack was hoisted up a flagpole. It meant nothing to me then, I did not become an Empire loyalist or political conservative and do not consider myself to be superior to Arabs, Africans, Chinese or anyone else -I am sure children and adults -and children AS adults- can make up their own minds about Noddy and Big Ears, I really do.
http://listverse.com/2007/12/03/top-10-politically-incorrect-kids-books/

[trish]

I appreciate the despair of seeing such books as listed in your link being kept from our children. The link, however, asserts it's the government banning these books. There is no federal ban against any of them to my knowledge. Mostly it's school boards that are obstructing the availability of these books for children by removing them from school libraries and classrooms. More rarely a State might weigh in against the teaching of a specific book or subject. This is not a matter of big government stepping in where it doesn't belong. It's a matter of it not stepping in to protect the right of children to be educated.

[russtafa]

some people in positions of power take it on themselves to censor anything coming past them so the poor public doesn't upset=sad

[trish]

School boards are elected and turn over rather regularly. They're not exactly the most powerful people in the world, or even in their cities in towns. Apathy is the more powerful agent in this scenario.

[russtafa]

i think it's a very powerful position where someone can shape young minds

[Dino Velvet]

This thread convinced me to quit trying to be so politically correct. Time to speak my mind. Thanks Russ.:cheers:

[trish]

i think it's a very powerful position where someone can shape young mindsSo run for your school board and be a powerful unpaid public servant.

[russtafa]

Well that's democracy as long you don't insight a riot ,that's what it's all about

[onmyknees]

I think it's great to protect gays and minorities but some times i think it's insane


Here's one for ya....In California it is now mandated by the State Education Board that students be taught contributions of gay Americans. This bill would update references to certain categories of persons and additionally would require instruction in social sciences to include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups, to the development of California and the United States.... but what could be so bad...right? , ....but alas there are always unintended consequences...
The bill might be implying that separating out the accomplishments of gay people from straight people in history implies that their gayness might have had something to do with their greatness. But if they're recognized mostly for their actions in the gay-rights movement, that would kind of be true -- just like we currently study the contributions of women and minorities under the headlines "Women's History," "Black History," etc. Of course, white men's history is just "History." Not ideal, but true.

And since California 12 graders are reading at a 6th grade level, and can't balance a check book upon graduating, and the education system is in serious economic chaos..one could say that they have failed in their mission to educate students. Just food for thought.

[trish]

Of course, white men's history is just "History."Of course that pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Take note this assessment excludes gays, even when they're Caucasian.

Alan Turing was a British polymath. One of finest mathematicians the twentieth century ever produced. He laid the foundations for the theory of computation, modern logic, artificial intelligence, the chemical basis of morphogeneses, and cryptography. During WWII he invented techniques for breaking German ciphers and designed a "computer" which decrypted the settings of the German Enigma machine.

After the war he worked at Bletchley Park pushing the envelop on the mathematics [of] decryption. In the early 50's Turing admitted to a homosexual encounter with an adult acquaintance within the privacy of his own home. He was found guilty of sexual indecency to be punished by chemical castration, and the loss of his security clearance at Bletchley. Some time into the "treatments" Turing was found dead in his home of arsenic poisoning. The coroner declared it was an accident. Some of his friends said it was suicide. I met one of his lovers some time ago at a conference. He was of the latter opinion.

Most courses in logic, computer science or cryptography will tell part of the story of Alan Turing as a brief historical interlude or as an historical introduction to the material. That Alan was gay is often left out. Why? I think the finish of the story is every bit as interesting and as important as the beginning, don't you? Sometimes people are accomplished in spite of the obstacles that backward thinking people have put in the way. Don't you think that's a good lesson for children to learn? It doesn't take for very long to tell the whole story. And it teaches children to persevere [(as Alan did__until he could no more)] as well as teaching them the virtues of tolerance. Just food for thought.

[Silcc69]

Of course that pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Take note this assessment excludes gays, even when they're Caucasian.

Alan Turing was a British polymath. One of finest mathematicians the twentieth century ever produced. He laid the foundations for the theory of computation, modern logic, artificial intelligence, the chemical basis of morphogeneses, and cryptography. During WWII he invented techniques for breaking German ciphers and designed a "computer" which decrypted the settings of the German Enigma machine.

After the war he worked at Bletchley Park pushing the envelop on the mathematics decryption. In the early 50's Turing admitted to a homosexual encounter with an adult acquaintance within the privacy of his own home. He was found guilty of sexual indecency to be punished by chemical castration, and the loss of his security clearance at Bletchley. Some time into the "treatments" Turing was found dead in his home of arsenic poisoning. The coroner declared it was an accident. Some of his friends said it was suicide. I met one of his lovers some time ago at a conference. He was of the latter opinion.

Most courses in logic, computer science or cryptography will tell part of the story of Alan Turing as a brief historical interlude or as an historical introduction to the material. That Alan was gay is often left out. Why? I think the finish of the story is every bit as interesting and as important as the beginning, don't you? Sometimes people are accomplished in spite of the obstacles that backward thinking people have put in the way. Don't you think that's a good lesson for children to learn? It doesn't take for very long to tell the whole story. And it teaches children to persevere as well as teaching them the virtues of tolerance. Just food for thought.

They actually tried him for sexual indecency I mean damn wtf!>

[russtafa]

I love that society try's to cater for minorities but if the company's suffer because the worker is not up to scratch?

[Stavros]

1) Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until its repeal in 1967; it began as a law against Buggery in 1533 and was extended to cover all homosexual acts in 1885 -the law that was used to convict and imprison Oscar Wilde. The law generated crimes such as blackmail; but note too that Suicide was also illegal when Turing died in 1954, it was not repealed until 1961 -failed suicides, whose crime was committed against God and the Monarch (in 1961 a Queen) were also often sent to gaol. Gordon Brown issued a formal apology to Turing in 2009.

2) Bletchley Park was shut down in 1945, all of the people worked there sworn to secrecy; Turing went to work at the National Physical Lab in Teddington, on the outskirts of London.

3) The problem with history (or Herstory as some feminist anarchists insist) is that on the one hand, the 1960s protest movements and changes in universities, did release a profound re-assessment of both the study of History and the content: since the 1960s there has been a wealth of genuinely outstanding history that has focused on women, African-Americans, Homosexuals, and so on and so on -you name any minority and someone somewhere has done a PhD on it. On the other hand, there are times when academics developing academia is rather like lunatics taking over an asylum -and because of the diversity of origin in classrooms in inner cities in particular, teachers claimed they were looking at children who had no idea what Iron is, who George Washington was, and who were not that interested in King George, be he number one or number three. Here in the UK, England and Wales have a 'national curriculum' (Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate education systems) and there is a continuous debate -should we teach narrative history beginning with Ye Olde Englande, Woad, the Romans, the Normans and its Kings and Queens in chronological order? Or be thematic? The mania to re-write children's books so that they do not 'offend' 'minorities' is part of this debate.

These university courses on Black History, Gay History and so on, are pet projects to justify employing John/Sarah Doe to teach General History and an option of their own choice -fair enough; but schoolchildren cannot choose options at that level, I am opposed to special lessons at Junior High because they need to get the foundations established. At this level, chronological narrative history is not problematic, as long as the known facts are addressed. Once pupils get to High School you can start diversifying with some classes on special interest issues, but it seems to be different all over the USA.

Should there be a National Curriculum in the USA created by the Federal Government? Not sure how it works there.

[trish]

Thank you, Stavros, for the correction. I'll take your word for it, that the National Physical Lab (not Bletchley Park) was Turing's last job with the government.

I don't know what the new mandate from the California State Board of Education requires exactly of California schools, I don't live there. I see nothing wrong with requiring children to learn something about science, medicine, history etc. and requiring schools not to be shy about it when those contributions were made by women, gays, Hispanics, Irishmen or what have you. The more humanizing information included about a contributor's loves, loses, struggles and successes the more interesting the material becomes. For example: in science classes students should not only learn about the Copernican system and Galileo's investigations, they should also learn how these men and their ideas had to struggle against the powers of their time. Or when children learn about the importance of cyphers in WWII, it's a good opportunity to tell the story, the full story, about Alan Turing. When they learn about the discovery of other galaxies and their distances from us, not only is it an opportunity to explain the role of Cepheids as standard candles, but to say something about the person, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, whose idea it was to use Cepheids to that purpose. These sorts of additions to the curriculum only make sense. On the other hand, imo, it may be going overboard (at the K-12 level) to create an entirely new, required course devoted the study of the contributions of the politically disadvantaged. As OMK suggests, there's already enough material students need to learn.

At the University level things are different. There's the History of Aviation. The History of the Amish. The History of Quilt Making in America and Its Role in Unifying Rural Communities. I think there's room for Black History, Gay History etc. I find that most academic departments are willing to hire professors with various specialties as long as they can be counted on to teach the general curriculum and produce publishable research (the exception would be highly research oriented schools which are trying to build or maintain a reputation in a certain specialized area). The actual courses that are offered by a University are those that are deemed by the faculty to be necessary for the appropriate degrees, those service courses that are requested from one department by another, and those elective courses which tend to be popular among the students (e.g. Woman's History as opposed to the History of American Piano Makers).

Russtafa. Is this intended to be a thread about political correctness or about affirmative action? They are two separate issues. At the risk of helping you derail your own thread I'll make a single remark. Whether or not a particular nation has an affirmative action law, or a company has an affirmative action policy__if they're not firing incompetent employees, then they're not doing it right.

[Stavros]

Trish as I understand it, as in the Uk there are universities and departments that have reputations for excellence, usually the quality of teaching and research and learning resources, and also the breadth of courses -some institutions don't have the staff to teach a wide curriculum. I think this issue is more controversial in schools because where older pupils can make up their own minds on issues, children tend to be more receptive to what they are told is true. This is why children's education has always been more explosive than university education.

On Bletchley Park -Turing was important, but there were a group of brilliant minds there; it is a pity he is remembered for his unhappy death as well as his contribution to the war.

[trish]

True enough. Children are perceived as being receptive and unquestioning, which is one reason why children's education can be an explosive issue. Another is that there are many more children attending schools (with parents who are alert to what they're being taught), than there are young adults attending college. Also parents don't have much choice over which public school their children attend (which is determined by the school district in which the family resides), whereas there's a large selection of colleges and universities from which the prospective college may choose.

It's a pity, for sure, that Turing's life ended unhappily. Certainly Turing is recognized largely for his contributions to mathematics and computing. He is probably most remembered by the lay public for the "Turing Test." My guess is that most Americans who know of him, probably don't know that he was gay, nor know that his sexuality was considered a crime for which he was punished by chemical castration. I don't agree it's a pity that some also remember his unhappy demise. I think it's important to remember. It is a valuable lesson in the wages of intolerance.

[Stavros]

I should qualify my comments on schools, because it might seem patronising to think that children, though receptive to what they are told, just absorb it like robots. The irony of it should be that if children develop their critical faculties, they can work out for themselves what they believe and do not and in the process reject what the teacher said about Martin Luther King or JFK or whoever -I doubt that most children have a real interest in history anyway, but the beauty of it is that one never knows who is going to emerge from a school somewhere at the age of 18 and by the age of 50 be the most respected person in their field. Not sure why I sound so optimistic about it, but its better than the alternative.